He is complaining that the crowd booed his partner. The partner he chose to play with. But he won't recognize that the reason the pair is being booed is that one of the partners is a child rapist. I think it's fair to think that that is bad.

I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here

Then he can stop bitching that people are booing his partner who raped a fucking 12 year old.

Pick a lane, "no comment" or acknowledge what he did and ask for forgiveness.

This is literally the Dutch team complaining that people are booing, and refusing to acknowledge an incredibly valid reason why it's happening.

Fuck em both.

Like you said, it's a small population of players. Even if this guy was #1 in the Netherlands, if #2 thru 25 said they won't play with a child rapist, the child rapist wouldn't be on the team.

Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.

You think she forgot till now?

You think she doesn't know his name?

Why is the issue talking about how he's a child rapist and not that the child rapist is in the goddamn Olympics?

Quick edit:

It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.

We don't call people heroes for doing the right thing because it's easy and sacrifice free.

But we do call people shit bags for doing the wrong thing for personal gain/glory.

Which is what we're doing here.

Except you, you're out here complaining people booed a guy who raped a 12 year old.

Why?

If his buddy has broken his leg before the Olympics they would have found a replacement.

Not saying it's right, but for context:

One legal distinction is that Van de Velde is unlikely to have been convicted of rape had he stood trial in the Netherlands rather than England. In England, sex with a 12-year-old is rape, regardless of the circumstances: an under-16 cannot legally consent. But after he was extradited to the Netherlands, having serving almost a year of his prison sentence, he was released after less than a month. Under Dutch law, his crime was deemed to be the lesser offence of ontucht, sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms.

From https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/30/netherlands-child-rapist-olympics-steven-van-de-velde

They could have not invited a convicted child rapist to represent their country at the Olympics.

I'm guessing the French wouldn't be especially accommodating to such vigilantism.

You are absolutely correct!

You'd need to use a guillotine.

Holding up signage, shouting rapist, turning their backs...there is a lot of room between booing and lynching.

Not putting him on a pedestal as a representative of your country would be a good start.

There's SO many options between one year in prison and extra judicial killing. Like, in prison for 10 years, just off the top of my head.

Stop putting words in their mouth, there are so many things to do other than booing that are non violent but you just immediately took the most extreme possible outcome and suggested that was what the person you are reply to meant.

a twelve year old, specifically

OMFG I misread things initially and though 12 years was how long he was in prison. 13 months??? That's insane, and I am usually for more lenient punishments and rehabilitation programs. Harsh punishments to a point just equate to revenge eventually, but fuck this guy. He should have served a much harsher sentence. Just reading the description of what happened makes my stomach turn.

Ive always heard it the reverse but same message. "If you choose to sit at a table with 11 Nazi's then there are 12 Nazi's at the table." Same sentiment though and i absolutely agree.

Not gonna lie, no matter how gross the age difference is, I keep thinking about the couples from my high school (in Germany, where the age of consent is 14) where there were 12 and 13 year olds involved with 17-19 year olds. It was rare but it happened and the relationships often lasted quite a while, so it was kind of... consensual, for lack of a better term. And since I don't know the girl or Van De Velde personally and I haven't been there, I wanted to abstain from judging this other than on the legal basis.

But when I read that he gave her alcohol - a 12 year old - no way. Sorry but no matter how iN lOvE anyone was or whatever, you do not give a 12 year old alcohol, unless it's a sip of your beer and she's your kid (saying this as someone raised in Bavaria). But other than that, no alcohol. And when you end up fucking a 12 year old - which is awful to begin with, worse since they only met - and first intoxicating her, that is just the point at which you cannot argue any kind of maturity, love, attraction, age of consent crap or whatever anymore. You intoxicated and fucked a minor. Period.

The more details from the case are revealed the more I have to say fuck that guy. But at the same time - fuck the judges double and triple.